VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Sec. 75 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Insolvency act) is directed against an order made by the Dist Judge at Mysore in insolvency Case 4 of 1972, whereby the appellant's petition preferred under Sec. 7 of the Insolvency Act had been dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant preferred a petition under S. 7 of the Insolvency Act to be adjudged as an insolvent as he was unable to pay two items of debts due to tne itspondents. One of the items represents a debt of Rs. 3,010 and is evidenced by a decree passed in Os. 543 of 1971 on the file of tne First munsiff at Mysore. The ether item consists of a sum of Rs. 13,3l9-96 with interest alleged to be due to the second respondent on account of supplies of super phosphate made by the second respondent to the appellant. ( 3 ) THE learned Dist Judge on an examination of the appellant came to, the conclusion that the first debt had been eslabished and the second could not be accepted as subsisting even if the transaction alleged was true. He, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that the appellant who on his retiring from service under Chamundy Curing Works in me year 1969 had received a sum of Rs. 6,000 to. 7,000, presumably as a retirement benefit, was unable to account as to the manner in which he dealt with or spent the said amount. In short, the Court, as it appears to us, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's claim that he was unable to pay the said debts could not be believed. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) IN support of the appeal, Sri M. Shivappa, the learned Counsel, contended that having regard to the provisions of Ss. 7 and 10 (1) of the insolvency Act, it was premature for the Court to have examined the bona fides of the appellant in the context of his inability to pay the debts. He further contended that at that stage all that the Court was required to examine was whether or not a prima facie case had been made out having regard to the provisions of the Act, particularly S. 10 (1) of that Act. It seems to us that this contention is well founded and this appeal clearly deserves to succeed. He further contended that at that stage all that the Court was required to examine was whether or not a prima facie case had been made out having regard to the provisions of the Act, particularly S. 10 (1) of that Act. It seems to us that this contention is well founded and this appeal clearly deserves to succeed. ( 5 ) IT is sufficient for this purpose to refer to the enunciation of the true legal position in regard to a matter of this nature where a debtor himself approaches the Court to be adjudged as an insolvent, in the case of krishnappa Chettiar v. Kssiviswanathan Chettiar, AIR. 1968 Mad. 331, with which we are in respectful agreement. The relevant passage reads :". . . . . As pointed by the Privy Council in Chhatrapat Sinqh Dugar v. Kharag Singh Lachmirani (ILR 44 Cal 535), when all the conditions specified under the Provincial Insolvency Act are satisfied, a debtor is entitled to an order of adjudication. The matter does not depend on the discretion of the Court, but it is a statutory right of which he cannot be deprived by the Court on the ground of abuse of process. There is a stage at which the Court could visit on the petitioner its due consequences of misconduct, that is when the application for discharge comes before the Court. At the time of the initiation of the proceeding, the Court has only to he satisfied that the essential conditions for adjudications as provided under the Act are present. . . . . " ( 6 ) IN the result, this appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Consequently the order made by the Dist Judge at Mysore in Insolvency case 4 of 1972 is hereby set aside and the petition concerned therewith stands allowed. The matter, however, is remitted to the Court below to proceed further in accordance with law. In the circumstances, no costs. --- *** --- .